Refuting Extremist Ideas: Worth the Time and Energy?

August 6, 2010

Usually
when I come across the latest ridiculous statements by people like
Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, my reaction is to begin deconstructing
their arguments, and even start writing a public critique in an effort
to combat the spread of their dangerous ideas. I have always considered
countering nonsense a task of the utmost importance for anyone who
thinks of him or herself as rational, intellectual, and in the position
to have their voice be heard. There is all the more reason to critique
nonsense when it gets out to a large audience and is widely believed.

However,
lately I have been contemplating my usual reaction. There is suddenly a
voice in my head that sounds like this: “they are extremists; they are
crazy; don’t waste your time; you have better things to do.” This is an
odd feeling for someone who believes fully in the importance of robust
debate, especially on the ideas and beliefs that most influence our
society. But that is precisely my problem: how much are extremists'
ideas and beliefs influencing society? And if the answer is not very
much, why bother handling them?

There
are two examples I would like to use to illustrate this issue. The
first example is broader and regards weighing the arguments of public
figures, like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin (others one might include, but
who were excluded for space: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity).
The second is narrower, yet related, and regards the question of
whether biologists should debate creationists. These are different
cases with some overlap, but in the end, they get back to the issue of
handling opinions deemed extreme.

What
do Beck and Palin say that might be worth refuting? I don’t imagine I
need to really tell you, but a couple of examples might help
nonetheless. Beck has
called Obama a racist
.
Palin dubbed the health insurance reform legislation “downright evil”
and falsely charged there would be “death panels.” Beck backed
her latter statement
(while imploring viewers to at least listen to what Palin was saying regarding the “downright evil” legislation). Beck
urged people
to leave churches that preach “social justice,” and equated the term with Nazism and Communism. Palin
said
the Founding Fathers wanted a government “based on the God of the Bible
and the Ten Commandments.” Again, this is just a taste of their antics.
There is a collection of Glenn Beck clips
here
and Sarah Palin clips
here
, and plenty more can be found with a quick Google search.

These
statements seem so ridiculous one might only want to shake his or her
head, as I have begun to do. Yet upon some reflection, it seems to me
there are good reasons to answer them.

Firstly,
while such people might be extreme in their ideas, they are not extreme
in their societal standing. That is, many people
watch Glenn Beck
and
support Sarah Palin
.
This is also why one should not focus one’s critique on the person, but
on their ideas (Beck and Palin are representations of the existence,
power, and popularity of such ideas). By refuting their arguments, one
is refuting the arguments of those who think Palin and Beck make sense,
which is millions of Americans. Remember that Palin was recently a U.S.
vice presidential candidate. It would seem that such an extremist
holding political office, or at least being close to it, should wake us
from our slumber and spur us to seriously challenge their beliefs.

But
can we really change the minds of extremists? Perhaps not. Still -- and
this is the second reason -- there is a large portion of the country
(and the world) that is in the middle, that is somewhat undecided about
the soundness of Beck’s or Palin’s arguments. They can be moved. There
is also a large group of people who already agree that Beck and Palin
are largely wrong, but who don’t really care about their
wrongheadedness. These people can also be moved. Indeed,
it would seem most reasonable to attempt to refute extremist ideas
precisely because most Americans are in these middle positions. At the least, one might be able to prevent people in this middle from sliding toward extremism. If
rationalists refrain from presenting their side, moderate Americans
might be swayed to the extreme, thus making the problem much worse. This
does not mean that rationalists should bother refuting everything Beck
or Palin say. For instance, just the other day Beck called a Michelle
Obama’s dress selection
“an outrage,”
a statement for which even Bill O’Reilly called him nuts. This doesn’t
seem the sort of thing we should really care about. But, Beck charging
that Obama is a racist is a claim of a different sort.

Now
recall the situation with evolutionists and creationists. Some of my
arguments about Beck and Palin would seemingly apply here, even though
this is a more specific issue. Richard Dawkins
has said
evolutionists should not debate creationists in a public event setting
because this gives creationists a legitimacy and standing they do not
deserve. Others have stated that debate is not a good setting for
quality discussion. I believe both of these arguments, if taken as
blanket statements, have it wrong.

Firstly,
creationism is an enormous problem in the U.S., where perhaps half the
nation accepts it as truth. Someone needs to counter creationist
arguments or they get to run free without critique. Second, as stated
before, the arguments rationalists put forth in a given situation might
be digested and accepted by the “sway” market. Third, of course, one
cannot expect a single debate cause a creationist to reverse position,
but it could be a step in that direction. Fourth, given the in-person
character of debates (as opposed to impersonal writings) there is an
opportunity to begin to break down biases. I refer to something Massimo
once told me: after debating a creationist, a number of creationists
approached him, not to tell him they had changed their minds, or that
he was going to hell. Instead, they relayed shock that an evolutionist -- and an atheist -- could be a nice, normal person! It would seem that
even if an evolutionist knew before heading into a debate that the
audience members were nearly all creationists, this would still provide
reason to accept the invitation (1).

Let's
now consider the issue of debates not being particularly conducive to
reasoned discussions. True, debates are more about rhetoric than
substance. While I believe there is something positive to say about
rhetoric, it is undeniable that debates have more to do with rhetoric
than with substance. But none of the common avenues through which
people are exposed to differing opinions -- TV, radio, the blogosphere --
are particularly conducive to reasoned discourse. To be sure, Dawkins
has said he would avoid formally debating creationists not just in
public events, but in all avenues, including TV. But this still seems
like a blanket statement that is difficult to defend. Should one stop
refuting Beck and Palin’s arguments merely because the available venues
are not always desirable? That would let beliefs off the hook because
of a dislike for the process. Instead, maybe the answer is this: there
should not be an all-out stance against debate, but rather a
recognition that certain avenues should be more or less favored
compared to others; similarly, certain evolutionary biologists, and
more broadly, intellectuals, should cede to others who are more
experienced at debate or rhetorically more skilled. In short, we ought
to come to some degree of acceptance about the way things are, and also
realize that some people are better equipped for some tasks.

Of
course, in both situations -- Beck and Palin, and evolutionists vs.
creationists -- one could ask, why me? Why should I refute those ideas?
Won’t someone else, like Media Matters or Michael Shermer, handle it? Well, there is the
issue of how well others might handle the job. We all have different
approaches and different areas of expertise, and so each person might
register a different yet instructive reaction (or even a better
reaction). Further, someone else might do it, but who will that person
be able to reach? When someone publishes an essay on The Huffington
Post, I might read it, but many of my family and friends will not. But,
there is a greater chance they will read a piece I wrote, purely
because it is by me. Some of my family members are creationists who I
do not expect to sway (they already know I’m not a terrible or mean
person), but at least I can present my reasonable arguments to the
family and friends who are in that on-the-fence group, and perhaps win
some support from non-creationists.

I
want Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck -- or, rather, their ideas -- to go away
as much as any other rational person does. But I believe the only way
to have them go away is to continue critiquing their beliefs as they
put them in the public square. There is reason to lament such a task.
But if we are citizens concerned about the quality of our society, and
we value that we live in an open democracy that allows all of us access
to public debate, perhaps we ought not want it any other way.

1.
One could also argue that evolutionists should also spend time teaching
people on their side, to make them more apt to rebut creationist
claims. This would amount to a counter argument to the idea that
"preaching to the converted" is a waste of time. But that is another
essay.

Comments:

To give them credit, the aforementioned conservatives are at least entertaining and that’s what really seems to count with the majority of the “concerned” public who watch or listen to such things. Liberals in such settings seem (at least in my opinion) to very often come across as mean spirited particularly when depicting the various characters of their much more commercially successful opposites as clowns which is mostly true, but why be so nasty about it?.

Regardless of who’s doing the preaching, I’m afraid that many US citizens regardless of any party affiliation are beginning to regard the unquestionably radical and very expensive (as in realistically totally unaffordable) populist agenda so recently being continually rammed down our collective throats in several very distasteful forms by the overbearing Democrat Party left as an excellent pinata going into the next election cycle. All good entertainment, yes?

Young Earth creationists are simply idiots who have zero discernment to go with their otherwise possibly admirable loyalty to their faith which nevertheless has no place being taught in a public school as “science”. Let them screw up their own kids’ education at home and in church if they must, but please leave mine alone.

#2 J. (Guest) on Saturday August 07, 2010 at 7:19pm

Bravo, Michael.

It is useless to try to bring about political change by public debate with extremists. But it is too valuable opportunity to let Glen Beck calling Ms. Obama’s dress selection an outrage to go without showing the hatred by Beck and his ilk. And such as Sara Palin’s bald lies need to be shown as a disrespect for rationality and speaking to the basest elements in society.

Belief in creationism is less important than exposing the plot to undermine our liberty by the efforts of extremists to erode the separation of church and state and how the quid pro quo of religious extremists and entrenched political and economic interests are destroying the middle class and cutting the poor adrift.

Before it was ruled out by the etiquette of seeking and holding public office Senator Al Franken proved the power of well aimed ridicule when done by a master.

I ran across this in the Wikipedia dictionary: “The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.”

Michael, it may not influence the fans of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, but it can help to reach their children. I know many people whose parents are rabid fans of the fanatical right, who have been exposed to writings that made them think and explore. Those are the people we need to target. The hard core right wing nuts are a lost cause. I just hope they don’t do as much damage as I fear they will in the meantime. Glenn Beck has gone as far as calling for assassinations, and one mentally ill idiot was caught in Oakland, CA last month, trying to carry it out…

E-Mail Updates

Search All Free Thinking Blogs

Michael De Dora is director of the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy and the organization's representative to the United Nations. In addition, he serves as president of the United Nations NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief.